>>we should have let him have Saudi Arabia, as well.
I have to agree! Saddam was the only decent ruler in the region. He was secular and kept his psychotic people on a short leash. The House of Saud is the vilest bunch of back-stabbing SOBs in the region.
***I have to agree! Saddam was the only decent ruler in the region.****
Google USS STARK.
Saddam was a sadistic thug, but one which was at least somewhat rational.
I’d say the only decent ruler was the Shah of Iran, and he was rewarded for his Enlightened despotism by being thrown to the wolves by Carter.
Sad thing is if the Pahlavis were as fundamentalist as the Saudis, they’d still be around to this day.
Oh please..decent and psychotic do not go together. He purged and tortured those chritians and others that stood up to him in any fashion. Not to mention his terrorist training camps that he fielded. Get a grip on reality!
I had no problem removing Saddam from power. I have a serious problem in borrowing money from China to fight wars in middle-east. If our treasury had surplus dollars sitting around, by all means act as policeman and keep bad guys around the world in check.
But when we are bankrupt based on GAAP accounting standards, it is height of folly to spend 10 times more than any other nation. Have’nt we learned anything from the Roman empire, the Third Reich, USSR, etc who all went bankrupt trying to spend on military adventures.